Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36949490›Full record

ArticleTrials2023

Patient-tailored transcranial direct current stimulation to improve stroke rehabilitation: study protocol of a randomized sham-controlled trial.

Mia Kolmos, Mads Just Madsen, Marie Louise Liu, Anke Karabanov, Katrine Lyders Johansen, Axel Thielscher, Karen Gandrup, Henrik Lundell, Søren Fuglsang, Esben Thade and 4 more

Open access · goldFull text readClinical Trial Protocol
In one paragraph

Article in Trials, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Systematic review: Resting state functional MRI as a biomarker for non-invasive brain stimulation in upper limb recovery post-stroke.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Mia KolmosNeurovascular Research Unit (NVRU), Department of Neurology, Copenhagen University Hospital -Herlev and Gentofte, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Mads Just MadsenDanish Research Centre for Magnetic Resonance (DRCMR), Centre for Functional and Diagnostic Imaging and Research, Copenhagen University Hospital Amager and Hvidovre, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Marie Louise LiuDanish Research Centre for Magnetic Resonance (DRCMR), Centre for Functional and Diagnostic Imaging and Research, Copenhagen University Hospital Amager and Hvidovre, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Anke KarabanovDepartment of Nutrition, Exercise and Sport (NEXS), Copenhagen University, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Katrine Lyders JohansenDepartment of Physiotherapy and Occupational Therapy, Copenhagen University Hospital Herlev and Gentofte, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Axel ThielscherDanish Research Centre for Magnetic Resonance (DRCMR), Centre for Functional and Diagnostic Imaging and Research, Copenhagen University Hospital Amager and Hvidovre, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Karen GandrupDepartment of Radiology, Copenhagen University Hospital Herlev and Gentofte, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Henrik LundellDanish Research Centre for Magnetic Resonance (DRCMR), Centre for Functional and Diagnostic Imaging and Research, Copenhagen University Hospital Amager and Hvidovre, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Søren FuglsangDanish Research Centre for Magnetic Resonance (DRCMR), Centre for Functional and Diagnostic Imaging and Research, Copenhagen University Hospital Amager and Hvidovre, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Esben ThadeDanish Research Centre for Magnetic Resonance (DRCMR), Centre for Functional and Diagnostic Imaging and Research, Copenhagen University Hospital Amager and Hvidovre, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Hanne ChristensenDepartment of Neurology, Copenhagen University Hospital Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Helle Klingenberg IversenDepartment of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Hartwig Roman SiebnerDanish Research Centre for Magnetic Resonance (DRCMR), Centre for Functional and Diagnostic Imaging and Research, Copenhagen University Hospital Amager and Hvidovre, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Christina KruuseNeurovascular Research Unit (NVRU), Department of Neurology, Copenhagen University Hospital -Herlev and Gentofte, Copenhagen, Denmark. christina.kruuse@regionh.dk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4210-0523
Copenhagen University Hospital · DKUniversity of Copenhagen · DKGentofte Hospital · DK

Funding

Lundbeckfonden R186-2015-2138Novo Nordisk Fonden NNF 18O 003 1840Novo Nordisk Fonden NNF19OC0058812.
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMany patients do not fully regain motor function after ischemic stroke. Transcranial direct current stimulation (TDCS) targeting the motor cortex may improve motor outcome as an add-on intervention to physical rehabilitation. However, beneficial effects on motor function vary largely among patients within and across TDCS trials. In addition to a large heterogeneity of study designs, this variability may be caused by the fact that TDCS was given as a one-size-fits-all protocol without accounting for anatomical differences between subjects. The efficacy and consistency of TDCS might be improved by a patient-tailored design that ensures precise targeting of a physiologically relevant area with an appropriate current strength.

methodsIn a randomized, double-blinded, sham-controlled trial, patients with subacute ischemic stroke and residual upper-extremity paresis will receive two times 20 min of focal TDCS of ipsilesional primary motor hand area (M1-HAND) during supervised rehabilitation training three times weekly for 4 weeks. Anticipated 60 patients will be randomly assigned to active or sham TDCS of ipsilesional M1-HAND, using a central anode and four equidistant cathodes. The placement of the electrode grid on the scalp and current strength at each cathode will be personalized based on individual electrical field models to induce an electrical current of 0.2 V/m in the cortical target region resulting in current strengths between 1 and 4 mA. Primary endpoint will be the difference in change of Fugl-Meyer Assessment of Upper Extremity (FMA-UE) score between active TDCS and sham at the end of the intervention. Exploratory endpoints will include UE-FMA at 12 weeks. Effects of TDCS on motor network connectivity and interhemispheric inhibition will be assessed with functional MRI and transcranial magnetic stimulation. DISCUSSION: The study will show the feasibility and test the efficacy of personalized, multi-electrode anodal TDCS of M1-HAND in patients with subacute stroke patients with upper-extremity paresis. Concurrent multimodal brain mapping will shed light into the mechanisms of action of therapeutic personalized TDCS of M1-HAND. Together, the results from this trial may inform future personalized TDCS studies in patients with focal neurological deficits after stroke.

Indexed as

Ischemic StrokeStrokeStroke RehabilitationTranscranial Direct Current StimulationHumansParesisRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRecovery of FunctionTreatment OutcomeUpper ExtremityIschemic strokeNeuroplasticityNeurorehabilitationTranscranial direct current stimulationUpper-extremity recovery

Identifiers

PMID36949490
PMCPMC10035265
OpenAlexW4353029596

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
reference markers read1
measurements read25
identifiers read1
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.